franco b wrote:How could he win? He wanted to incinerate little girls in atomic holocaust.

That shows that the power of believing what you see on the boob tube in a 30 second political commercial was just as much of a problem then as it is now, and whomever can touch the tear-jerk synapse center of the brains of the most people wins the election, whether there is any hint of truth to the emotionalism of the adds or not. Emotions and feelings and gut intuition are not a good reason to vote for anyone. Goldwater's main problem was that he was too logical and practical and realistic. Illogical fantasy and promises of making everyone feel good by spreading the wealth around win far more elections.

Goldwater's massively humiliating defeat and the subsequent total abandonment of the conservative movement (I.E. the movement to conserve and uphold the Constitution as written and properly delimit government thereby) by the Republican party inspired the formation of the Libertarian party.

I still remember him being called "the white knight of the far right" in a magazine article. After Sen. Taft he was all we had until Reagan. It was "The Speech" given by Reagan multiple times in support of Goldwater that made Reagan a national figure in politics. It was a great speech.

Barry Goldwater + The Non-Aggression Principle = the Libertarian Party

It must be the non-aggression principle that is keeping the Libertarian Party from garnering more than about 1% of the vote. Goldwater got 36% of the vote. But the real warmonger (LBJ) got the rest. Warmongering is very popular with the masses. That is why the main thrust of the Republican Party today lies within in it's Neocon faction.

The non-aggression principle seems like something Jesus would have promoted (OK, did promote), so I have never been able to understand why the Religious Right would rather cling to the bootstraps of the Neocons.

People are conservative in the sense that what they consider too radical a change scares them. Just like Ayn Rand the logic is too brutal to what they have been accustomed to. The reasoning too alien to what they have been hearing. The promise excessive. It can't be true. Goldwater was painted as an extremist and Paul as a loony. If you have conservative values you are a tool of the rich.

Logic comes into play in a political campaign only after emotion decides who to pick and then logic is used to further that emotional choice.

franco b wrote:People are conservative in the sense that what they consider too radical a change scares them. Just like Ayn Rand the logic is too brutal to what they have been accustomed to. The reasoning too alien to what they have been hearing. The promise excessive. It can't be true. Goldwater was painted as an extremist and Paul as a loony. If you have conservative values you are a tool of the rich.

Logic comes into play in a political campaign only after emotion decides who to pick and then logic is used to further that emotional choice.

If the above are all truisms, then:-------------------------------------------People have absolutely no clue what it means to be conservative. The Founders were radically liberal, and those who believe in their legacy are thereby conservative.If logic is somehow brutal (to realistic and matter of fact and true), then false and irrational emotionalism and fantasy must be the proper means to all ends.Due to the above, reason and logic are truly the product of the devil (and are thereby truly to be alienated). Thus the Religious Right's licking the boots of the Neocons.LBJ was a non-extremist (whatever that might be), and roughly 60,000 soldiers died as a result of his being non-extreme. Goldwater was tagged as an extremist because the Republicans were on the verge of abandoning the Constitution. His defeat justified their means to that end.Paul is a loony because he is the embodiment of Goldwater + The Non-Aggression Principle.

I used the word conservative not as a philosophy but as meaning a reluctance to change, better the devil you know. Most are conservative in that sense which is why sitting Presidents are so hard to beat.

Emotionalism is not always wrong and not always irrational. Its foundations were very rational.

Logic is there to cater to our emotions and also stimulate emotions. That's what advertising does and politicians do through logical means to satisfy their own emotions.

Through logic you have inferred a political system that you would be emotionally satisfied with, which further infers that because you are human that other humans who have similar needs would thrive equally under that system.

franco b wrote:People are conservative in the sense that what they consider too radical a change scares them. Just like Ayn Rand the logic is too brutal to what they have been accustomed to. The reasoning too alien to what they have been hearing. The promise excessive. It can't be true. Goldwater was painted as an extremist and Paul as a loony. If you have conservative values you are a tool of the rich.

Logic comes into play in a political campaign only after emotion decides who to pick and then logic is used to further that emotional choice.

He was killed before or if he would have gotten the chance to run but I think he would have been one of the few that could do good for everybody with a fair balance, John Heinz would have been good, perhaps that's why he's no longer with us.

franco b wrote:People are conservative in the sense that what they consider too radical a change scares them. Just like Ayn Rand the logic is too brutal to what they have been accustomed to. The reasoning too alien to what they have been hearing. The promise excessive. It can't be true. Goldwater was painted as an extremist and Paul as a loony. If you have conservative values you are a tool of the rich.

Logic comes into play in a political campaign only after emotion decides who to pick and then logic is used to further that emotional choice.

" tool" of the rich.

I would interpret the comment, "If you have conservative values you are a tool of the rich.", this way.

First I would have to do some defining. Conservative, someone who wants to maintain the status quo which is at present fascistic. The "rich" would be the UBER rich elitists who benefit from and control the criminal fascistic status quo. Hence being a Conservative you are being an active unwitting tool supporting the (UBER) rich. I have nothing against people with money who come by it morally and honestly.

The funny thing is that the stereotyped "left" believes they are against the rich yet the policies they promote and just enhance the control of the uber rich through government over the society which furthers their (the uber rich's) goals.

The Conservative/Liberal paradigm really is a false choice. They differ on details on social issues but at their core they are both promoting fascism. Nothing will change until "The People" come the realization that we have been had. While the top of the food chain, those who are receiving benefits at bottom of the food chain, and those who are in employed in government are all benefiting one way or another from the system we will see more of the same, at least til it financially collapses. So long as people are reaping the benefits they will choose to deny the mathematically certainty that this paradigm can't continue. Ayn Rand said (by memory), "You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." I know it isn't a popular message. I'm sorry. You can only keep the system alive on borrowed money created from nothing just so long and that is the only thing that is temporarily maintaining our lifestyle as a nation. The "money system" itself is at the heart of the fraud. There is NO easy solution. Anyone who promises that is a fraud themselves. I'm sorry to be so pessimistic but that is reality as I see it. This isn't a fairy tale with a happy ending. More like a Greek tragedy.